Evolution and practical science

Countering a common belief with Creation magazineEditorial

In February 1998, the journal Australasian Science carried an article by
environmental biologist David Booth warning ‘that scientific creationism is
making unwelcome inroads into the education system’.

The usual misrepresentations/misunderstandings about creation and science aside,
I was interested to see that towards the article’s end, Booth claimed that
understanding evolution ‘is of great practical relevance’.1

‘Decisions on the control of disease and pest resistance, the treatment of
genetic diseases, the design of nature reserves and endangered species breeding
programs,’ he writes, ‘all must be based on solid evolutionary principles.’

This widespread misconception, that much of practical science becomes impossible
without belief in evolution, is only one of the many myths which readers can counter
using Creation magazine.

For example, compare Booth’s statement above with the
interview involving a French scientist heavily involved in government research
on similar questions. This geneticist is only one of many who believe in six-day
creation, and he is convinced that evolutionary theory is of absolutely no practical
value to his work whatsoever.

This is one of the main reasons we routinely feature articles on qualified, practising
scientists who are creationists, in a vast array of fields. It helps readers to
be able to easily counter the common fallacy that belief in evolution has something
to do with real, practical science that works.

Associated with this is the myth, adhered to by perhaps the majority of educated
people today, that one can ‘see evolution happening’ today. Biologists
like Booth, when they see changes such as adaptation through natural selection,
etc. think they are ‘seeing’ the same process which allegedly turned
fish into philosophers, for example. Thus, until the fallacy in this belief is explained
to them, it is no wonder that they see evolution-rejecting Christians as ignorant
fanatics denying a ‘fact’ which they can see with their own eyes.

This is why it is so important for us to try to include, in each issue of the magazine,
something which you can use to correct such misconceptions—preferably, something
which not only informs, but is enticing to read, such as the article on
bears with its brilliant photography. This presents the facts of adaptation
and natural selection within a thoroughly biblical way of thinking about the history
of life.

Even more exciting is this: Not only do observations of the changes in living things
not demand an evolutionary interpretation, but they actually generate a
huge problem for mega-evolutionary belief, once the crucial ‘information factor’
is taken into account (see also Weasel Words).

A point of irony in all this comes from an earlier part of Booth’s article,
in which he complains that many Australian university biology curricula ‘pay
no more than lip service to evolution’. The reason, says Booth, is the ‘move
to a more utilitarian science’ which demands ‘more practical benefits
from science’. So Booth admits that, in response to pressure to get more practical
scientific results, universities are moving away from spending time on
evolutionary theorising. This hardly supports his claim in the same article that
evolution is ‘of great practical relevance’ to science!

Enjoy this magazine, but please—don’t keep this information to yourself.
It’s just far too important.

Note

Booth’s claim is moderate compared to some of the inflammatory
rhetoric (designed for public consumption) from the extreme wing of anti-creationism
in Australia. One flamboyant atheistic crusader, widely regarded as obsessed with
the issue (and lauded by some prominent churchmen), claims that all modern science,
technology, medicine, etc. would be impossible if biblical creation were true! Return to text.

They say time is money. Well, this site provides over 30 years of information. That’s a lot of money and time. Would you support our efforts to keep this information coming for 30 more years? Support this site